PARTIES

The
domain names at issue are <citiorient.com> and <citiorientsecurities.com>,
registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.

PANEL

The
undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially
and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as
Panelist in this proceeding.

The
Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL
HISTORY

Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November
3, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on November 4, 2011.

On
November 3, 2011, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National
Arbitration Forum that the <citiorient.com> and <citiorientsecurities.com>
domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is
the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, Inc. has verified that
Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, Inc. registration agreement and has
thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in
accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the
“Policy”).

On
November 4, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a
Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 25, 2011 by
which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all
entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical,
administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@citiorient.com and
postmaster@citiorientsecurities.com. Also on November 4, 2011, the Written
Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and
the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to
all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical,
administrative and billing contacts.

A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on November 21, 2011.

An
additional submission from Complainant was received by the Forum on November
28, 2011 and was received in a
timely manner according to Forum Supplemental Rule 7. The Panel has given
consideration to this submission and taken it into account in reaching its
decision.

On
November 30, 2011 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed The
Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant
requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent
to Complainant.

PARTIES'
CONTENTIONS

A.
Complainant

Complainant
makes the following contentions:

1.Respondent’s <citiorient.com>
and <citiorientsecurities.com>, domain names are confusingly
similar to Complainant’s CITI mark as they contain words describing the name of
its joint venturer. The addition of those words adds to the confusing
similarity that arises from using Complainant’s CITI mark in the domain names.

2.Respondent
does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the<citiorient.com>
and <citiorientsecurities.com>, domain names as (i) Respondent
has not show that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name, (ii) the
domain name resolves to a website that
contains hyperlinks to third-party websites of businesses competing with
Complainant , (iii) Respondent is
not making a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services or
a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <citiorient.com>
and <citiorientsecurities.com> domain names and (iv) Complainant
has not granted Respondent any license, permission, or authorization

by
which it could own or use any domain name registrations which are confusingly
similar to any of Complainant’s marks.

3.Respondent registered and used the <citiorient.com>
and <citiorientsecurities.com>, domain names in bad faith on the
grounds that (i) Respondent registered the <citiorient.com> and <citiorientsecurities.com>
domain names the day after the

public
announcement of the joint venture between Complainant and Orient Securities. Respondent’s
knowledge of the joint venture and the famous CITI Marks may be inferred from the
registration using the names of Complainant and its previously-undisclosed
joint venturer, (ii)

given that the disputed domain names consist of the
CITI Marks and the mark of Complainant’s joint venturer, Respondent likely
selected the disputed domain names in order to prevent Complainant from
reflecting in the domain names the CITI Marks with the mark of Complainant’s
joint venturer, (iii) Respondent knew, or should have known, of the CITI Marks
at all relevant times given the considerable registration and use of the CITI
Marks, including in Respondent’s home jurisdiction of China,(iv)Respondent is
not making a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services or
a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the and (v)Respondent
receives click-through revenue from the hyperlinks referred to.

B.
Respondent

Respondent makes the
following contentions:

1.
The <citiorient.com> and <citiorientsecurities.com>,
domain names are not confusingly similar to the CITI mark because:

(a)
The main part of the domain names is different from the trademark of the Complainant.
Although the letters of the trademark are contained in the domain names, the
expressions “orient” and “orientsecurities” are more outstanding than “citi”,
because they are more easily recognized;

(c)
The expression “citi” is also the Chinese phonetic alphabet version of the
general Chinese word “citi”, meaning magnet. According to the corresponding
Chinese meaning, “citi orient” can also be understood as the combination of
commonly used Chinese words “citi”, “Orient” and “securities”.

(d)
Respondent registered the disputed domain names on June 1, 2011. Prior to that
time, the complainant did not use the words “citi orient” or “citi orient
securities” in any commercial activities or businesses. In the Complaint, Complainant
alleges that Respondent registered the domain names on June 3, 2011, which was
later than the date on which of the Complainant released news of Complainant’s
merger on its official website, namely June 2, 2011. That is not so, as the
domain names were registered on June 1, 2011and Complainant released the news
of the joint venture on June 2, 2011.

2.
Respondent has rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names as according
to ICANN regulations and the principle of “first come, first served”, Respondent
registered and utilized the domain names in accordance with the law.

3.
(a) Respondent did not register and use then disputed domain names in bad faith,
as it registered them and reasonably used them in good faith. The date Respondent
registered the disputed domain names was earlier than the date Complainant
released news on the official website of the merger, so the registration was
not in bad faith. Before this, Respondent did not know and would not be likely
to know the news content that the complainant intended to release on its
website. Moreover, Complainant does not have any evidence to prove that
Respondent already knew of the news release before registering the domain names.

(b)
The domain parking service undertaken does not constitute bad faith use as
Respondent cannot choose or control the content of parking advertisements. Even
if the result constitutes bad faith, that is not bad faith use.

(c)
Complainant has not provided any evidentiary materials that Respondent intended
to sell the domain names to Complainant or its competitors.

(d)
Complainant has not provided any other evidentiary materials to prove that
Respondent used the domain names used in bad faith.

C.
Complainant submitted in its Additional Submission that the timing of the
announcement of the proposed joint venture and the registration of the disputed
domain names shows that the proximity in time of those events raises the
inference that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith.

FINDINGS

1.Complainant is the world-renowned
financial services company that operates worldwide and has extensive interests
and activities in the finance sector. It operates widely in about 100 countries
and makes extensive use of the CITI mark in its activites.

2.Complainant
is the registered proprietor of a trademark for CITI registered with the United
States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 1,181,467
registered December 8, 1981) and a trademark for CITI registered with the
Chinese State Administration for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) (Reg. No.
2,021,063 registered March 14, 2004.

3.In the
earlier half of 2011 Complainant negotiated a joint venture with Orient
Securities and announced the joint venture on June 2, 2011.

5.At the
time Respondent registered the disputed domain names it had knowledge of the
proposed joint venture between Complainant and Orient Securities and registered
the domain names because it believed that the joint venture had been concluded
or that it was imminent.

DISCUSSION

Paragraph
15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the
basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy,
these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

Paragraph
4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following
three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or
transferred:

(1)the
domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)the
domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Identical
and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant
presents several trademark registrations that it owns for the CITI mark. One
such mark is with the USPTO (Reg. No. 1,181,467 registered December 8, 1981),
and the other is with the SAIC (Reg. No. 2,021,063 registered March 14, 2004).
Previous panels have determined that the ownership of multiple trademark
registrations with national trademark authorities is sufficient for a
complainant to establish Policy ¶ 4(a) (i) rights in its asserted mark. See
Digi-Key
Corp. v. Bei jing ju zhong cheng dian zi ji shu you xian gong si, FA 1213758 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Oct. 1, 2008) (“The Panel finds these registrations [with the USPTO and
the SAIC] sufficiently establish Complainant’s rights in its DIGI-KEY mark
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Google,
Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (finding that
the complainant had established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding
of numerous trademark registrations around the world). The Panel accepts the
evidence of the two trademarks and finds that Complainant has proven within the
meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) that it has rights in the CITI mark.

Complainant
also contends that the <citiorient.com> and <citiorientsecurities.com>
domain names are confusingly similar to the CITI mark. Complainant notes
that the domain names contain its mark entirely, while adding the term “orient”
and the term “orientsecurities” respectively, being clear references to the name
of its joint venturer, and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Previous panels have found that where a domain name contains a complainant’s
mark entirely while adding a generic term or terms and the required gTLD, such
domain names are confusingly similar to the respective complainant’s trademarks
under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am.
Online, Inc. v. Anytime Online Traffic Sch., FA 146930 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 11, 2003)
(finding that the respondent’s domain names, which incorporated the complainant’s
entire mark and merely added the descriptive terms “traffic school,” “defensive
driving,” and “driver improvement” did not add any distinctive features capable
of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity); see also Arthur Guinness Son
& Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001)
(finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the
identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see
also Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA 153545 (Nat. Arb. Forum
May 27, 2003) (“The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when
establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because
top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.”). The domain
names therefore consist of Complainant’s mark and references to the company
with which Complainant had entered into a joint venture. The Panel finds
accordingly that Respondent’s <citiorient.com> and <citiorientsecurities.com>
domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITI mark pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Respondent contends that the <citiorient.com>
and <citiorientsecurities.com> domain names are comprised of common
and generic terms and as such cannot be found to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s
mark. However, the Panel finds that such a determination is not necessary under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as this portion of the Policy considers only whether
Complainant has rights in the mark and whether the disputed domain names are
identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See Precious
Puppies of Florida, Inc. v. kc, FA 1028247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 10, 2007)
(examining Respondent’s generic terms arguments only under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
and Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and not under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Vitello v.
Castello, FA 159460 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 1, 2003) (finding that the
respondent’s disputed domain name was identical to complainant’s mark under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) but later determining the issue of whether the disputed domain
name was comprised of generic terms under Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(ii) and 4(a)(iii)).

Respondent
also contends that the main part of the domain names is different from Complainant’s
trademark. However, even if that were true, each of the domain names starts
with the word “citi” which is Complainant’s trademark and the objective
bystander would naturally conclude that the domain names are therefore related
to Complainant or were official domain names of Complainant, which they are
not.

Respondent
also contends that Complainant has not registered as trademarks the expressions
“disorient”, “city orient”, “citiorientsecurities” or “citi orient securities”.
That submission will not avail Respondent as the sole test under the Policy is
whether, on a comparison between the two, a domain name is identical or
confusingly similar to a trademark and there is no obligation on a complainant
to prove that it has registered other trademarks than those it relies on.

Respondent
also contends that the expression “citi” is also the Chinese phonetic alphabet
version of the general Chinese word “citi” , meaning magnet and that, according
to the corresponding Chinese meaning, “citi orient” can also be understood as
the combination of commonly used Chinese words “citi”, “Orient” and “securities”.
This argument also will not avail Respondent as the sole test is to make the
comparison between the domain names at issue and the trademark relied on. Applying
that test, the Panel has concluded that the disputed domain names are
confusingly similar to the trademark.

Respondent also contends
that it registered the disputed domain names on June 1, 2011, not on June 3,
2011 as alleged by Complainant and that the news of Complainant’s joint venture
was announced on June 2, 2011, i.e. after the registration of the domain names.
That issue is not relevant to the present issue but the Panel takes this
opportunity of noting that it does not accept that Respondent registered the
disputed domain names before the announcement of the joint venture and in
ignorance of it. The Panel will deal further with that issue later in this
decision.

For
these reasons Complainant has made out the first of the three elements that it
must establish.

Rights or
Legitimate Interests

Complainant
must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and
legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and
then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate
interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA
741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first
make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden
shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate
interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200
(Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie
showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the
subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its
burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights
or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).

Complainant
contends that Respondent is not commonly known by either of the disputed domain
names in this dispute. Complainant points the Panel to the WHOIS information,
which identities “Zhang Na” as the registrant, a fact which Complainant asserts
to prove that Respondent is not known by the domain names. ) Further, Complainant
alleges that it has not granted Respondent any license or permission to use its
mark in any way. Previous panels have determined that where a complainant has
not licensed or authorized a respondent to use its mark, and where the WHOIS
information does not indicate a relationship between the registrant and the
domain name, the respective respondent is not commonly known by the domain name
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c) (ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652
(Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly
known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all
other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was
commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not
authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered
mark); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in a disputed domain name where there was no evidence in the record
indicating that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
The Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed
domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

Complainant
also alleges that the <citiorient.com> and <citiorientsecurities.com>
domain names resolve to websites that are merely parked pages that provide
many third-party hyperlinks to various competing financial services businesses,
as well as a link to Complainant’s website. The Panel notes that such links
are embedded under headings such as “Citi Credit Cards,” “No Annual Fee Credit
Card,” and “Debt Management,” all fields in which Complainant is involved.
Previous panels have found that such use of confusingly similar domain names
does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services under
Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
See ALPITOUR
S.p.A. v. Albloushi,
FA 888651 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 26, 2007) (rejecting the respondent’s
contention of rights and legitimate interests in the <bravoclub.com>
domain name because the respondent was merely using the domain name to operate
a website containing links to various competing commercial websites, which the
panel did not find to be a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods
or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair
use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Skyhawke Techns., LLC v.
Tidewinds Group, Inc., FA 949608 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2007) (“Respondent
is using the <skycaddy.com> domain name to display a list of hyperlinks,
some of which advertise Complainant and its competitors’ products. The Panel therefore
finds that this use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide
offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). The Panel finds
accordingly that Respondent has not demonstrated a bona fide offering of
goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair
use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

Complainant
also maintains that Respondent is attempting to sell the disputed domain names
to the general public. Complainant notes that there is a statement and link on
the resolving websites which states, “[t]he domain [name] may be for sale by
its owner!” As this is a general sale offer, such an offer to sell the domain
names is indicative of Respondent’s lack of rights in the domain names under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork,
D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding the respondent’s conduct purporting to
sell the domain name suggests it has no legitimate use); see also Skipton
Bldg. Soc’y v. Colman, D2000-1217 (WIPO Dec. 1, 2000) (finding no rights in
a domain name where the respondent offered the infringing domain name for sale
and the evidence suggests that anyone approaching this domain name through the
worldwide web would be "misleadingly" diverted to other sites).

For
these reasons, the Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie
case and the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut the prima facie case. The
question then arises whether Respondent has rebutted the prima facie case
against it. The Panel finds that it has not done so and for the following
reasons. Respondent’s case on this element is that according to ICANN
regulations and the principle of “first come, first served”, Respondent
registered and utilized the domain names in accordance with the law. However,
ICANN’s rules include the Policy and the Policy does not give Respondent a
right to the domain names merely because it registered them before Complainant
could do so. Moreover, there is no “first come, first served” principle if a
domain name is registered improperly or contrary to the Policy. Essentially,
Respondent’s case on the whole proceeding is that it registered the domain
names not knowing of the joint venture with Orient Securities and in any event
before Complainant issued its press release announcing the conclusion of the
negotiations for the joint venture. There is some dispute as to the precise
date when Respondent registered the domain names and Complainant has suggested
in its Additional Submission that time differences between Asia and the United
States may explain any discrepancy if there is one. This may be the
explanation, but in the opinion of the Panel, it does not matter. That is so
because the Panel does not accept that it is credible that Respondent did not
know of the proposed joint venture. The Panel finds that Respondent knew either
that the joint venture was possible, imminent or already concluded and that it
registered the domain names for that reason and to capitalize on the event. On
the balance of probabilities, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the
domain names with the intention of benefiting itself at the expense of
Complainant by forcing Complainant to buy them or with the intention of selling
them to another party who in turn would force Complainant to buy them or with
the intention of using the domain names to mislead users of the Internet as to
the association between the domain names and Complainant. Nor is this solely an
attempt to extort money from Complainant, for when domain names including the
names of banks are at issue there is at least a possibility that innocent
victims will give their personal details to unauthorized people who will use
them for criminal and fraudulent activities. Accordingly, the Panel rejects the
evidence of Respondent as it is incapable of being accepted as credible
evidence. It is also rejected in view of the absence of any explanation or
suggestion from Respondent as to why, of all the names available to it for its
domain names, it chose the popular name and trademark of Complainant and its
joint venturer and at the strategically significant time of the negotiations
for the joint venture and their conclusion.

Respondent
has thus failed to rebut the prima facie case against it and Complainant
has thus established the second of the three elements it must prove.

Registration
and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant
claims that Respondent may be attempting to sell the disputed domain names.
Complainant points to the top of the resolving websites that contain a line
stating, “[t]he domain [name] may be for sale by its owner!” Further,
Complainant also notes that the WHOIS information also contains a link stating
that the domain names may be for sale. Such a link or statement is a general offer
to sell the domain names and the Panel therefore finds that such evidence
indicates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See
Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. v. Stork,
D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding that the attempted sale of a domain
name is evidence of bad faith); see also Bank of
Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA
180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's general offer of the
disputed domain name registration for sale establishes that the domain name was
registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”).

Complainant also submits that the domain names contain not only
its mark, but the name of “Orient Securities,” the company with which
Complainant announced a joint venture just before Respondent registered the
domain names in question. Complainant argues that Respondent is using the
domain names to prevent Complainant from reflecting its mark and the mark of
its joint venture partner in bad faith. The Panel agrees and finds that
Respondent’s registration of the <citiorient.com> and <citiorientsecurities.com>
domain names prevents Complainant from reflecting its mark in a domain name
under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tel. Island, D2004-0711
(WIPO Nov. 15, 2004) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent registered the <toshibastrata.com> domain
name to prevent the complainant from reflecting the TOSHIBA and STRATA marks in
a corresponding domain name); see also Albertson's, Inc. v. Bennett, FA 117013 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Sept. 5, 2002) (finding bad faith registration
and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) in the respondent’s registration of the
<albertsonscoupons.com> and <albertsons-coupons.com> domain
names because the respondent “registered the
domain names in order to prevent Complainant from registering its common law
ALBERTSON’S COUPON mark in a corresponding domain name”).

Further, Complainant submits that Respondent is using the domain
names to produce websites featuring third-party links to competing businesses
in the financial services market. Prior panels have found that such links
create a disruption to a complainant’s business and are evidence of bad faith
under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Red
Hat, Inc. v. Haecke,
FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged
in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by using the
disputed domain names to operate a commercial search engine with links to the
products of the complainant and to complainant’s competitors, as well as by
diverting Internet users to several other domain names); see also Tesco
Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs.,FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that
the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a
directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a
complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use under
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). The Panel therefore finds Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) bad faith
has been made out.

Complainant
also submits that Respondent registered the domain names at issue with the
intent of commercial gain. Complainant alleges that Respondent “demonstrates
his bad faith through providing pay-per-click, advertising competing credit
card services at the Offending Domains, thereby attracting Internet traffic to
the Offending Domains for commercial gain by using Complainant’s CITI Marks.”
The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent has registered and used the domain
names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25,
2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain
name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that
offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took
advantage of Internet user mistakes); see also Associated
Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA
201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the
<mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's
competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the
misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”). Accordingly, the
Panel finds in all the circumstances of this case that Respondent is liable for
the content displayed on its websites resolving from the domain names.

Lastly, Complainant contends that Respondent registered the
disputed domain names opportunistically and in bad faith. Complainant alleges
that Respondent registered the domain names the day after Complainant announced
a new joint venture with Orient Securities. The Panel agrees with Complainant
and finds, as also discussed in the previous section of this decision and for
the reasons given there, that Respondent opportunistically registered the
domain names, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy
¶ 4(a)(iii). See Sota
v. Waldron,
D2001-0351 (WIPO June 18, 2001) (finding that the respondent’s registration of
the <seveballesterostrophy.com> domain name at the time of the
announcement of the Save Balusters Trophy golf tournament “strongly indicates
an opportunistic registration”); see also 3M Co. v. Jung,FA
505494 (Nat. Arab. Forum Aug. 11, 2005) (“Respondent’s registration of the
disputed domain name the same day that Complainant issued the press release
regarding the acquisition constitutes opportunistic bad faith.”).

Complainant
has thus established the third of the three elements that it is required to
prove.

DECISION

Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly,
it is Ordered that the <citiorient.com> and <citiorientsecurities.com>
domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.